OK, i’ve resisted this until now but let me quickly list the ways in which Richard Murphy is wrong in this rambling attempt to dismiss the reality of GERS buckle up (1/n)
he correctly observes Scotland generates same revenues per head and benefits from £2,600 per head higher spending but says it’s “very hard to work out” how it isn’t very hard to work, it’s clearly explained in the GERS report 2/n
i’ve taken the time to graph that higher spending by category over time (the data’s all there) most of it comes from social protection (pensions and benefits), education, housing and health — these are readily available figures 3/n
[aside: that “other” is mainly “accounting adjustments” which are balanced by revenue adjustments - if they weren’t included Scotland’s revenue per head would be an equivalent amount lower] 4/n
he then rather bizarrely claims the elements of this higher spending for which Westminster is responsible (eg pensions and benefits) happens because “Westminster doesn’t care about” Scotland — spends more on Scotland because doesn’t care about Scotland? 5/n
he then argues that Scotland needs higher spending because on average earnings are lower and it’s colder - in fact geography, population density and the dependency ratio ratio are bigger issues, but whatever … 6/n
… the key point is he is now (badly) explaining why Scotland has higher spending per head in and for Scotland - a fact he sneeringly and sceptically said “is claimed” is a fact he now is arguing in favour of 7/n
he then makes the junior schoolboy error he makes every year, claiming these costs are “dumped on Scotland by Westminster” - but the methodology used for cost attribution is entirely owned by the Scottish Government’s Chief Economist and his team 8/n
next he claims national income is being under reported (by the Scottish Government!) and cites “wind companies in Scotland being paid not to produce energy a prize to anybody who can explain how subsidising companies in scotland *reduces* national income! 9/n
